Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Things I Don't Get, #355,401

Remember at the end of Python's Holy Grail, when the cops show up and arrest Arthur and a bunch of his knights, and one of the bobbies yanks a guy's shield away with a brusque "'Ere, that's an offensive weapon, that is"? Remember that?

20 comments:

Pakkinpoppa
said...

I'm sure the argument is the same for only allowing teh unwashed masses to have 10 rounds per blaster, or 5 for a longblaster, or 10 if said mag can be used in a handgun and happens to fit in a longblaster...

I peruse Marstar on occasion, and if one is Canadian, one can still buy Norinco products. However, the SKS is limited to a flush, 5 round magazine.

And I'm not sure who has a "prohibited" license, but they have WWII surplus items at actual, reasonable prices. For such a small market, I imagine they almost have to...ponder an MP40 for "only" 5 Large for example last time I saw them on their site.

Well, you see, the nice folks bringing you this legislation don't want to live in the sort of country where people have to wear body armor, because that's just icky. So they'll make it illegal, and through the wonder of magic, banning the effect will get rid of the cause, too.

If one lunatic shooting up a British school is enough justification to pass legislation disarming all British, and one lunatic shooting up a Canadian school is enough justification to pass legislation registering all long arms in Canada, don't you think one bank robber in body armor (several years ago) in California is enough justification to pass anti-armor law?

I don't either, but there are reasons I don't live in Britain or Canada or California or Massachussetts or MD or NY or NJ or IL.

The very best soft body armor is lightweight and supple and as such much more comfortable to the wearer. That said it’s also much more expensive than its more common counterparts worn by most LEO who deal with the added weight, heat and lack of maneuverability. It’s all about compromise and compensation with the end user learning how to move more effectively as well as how to deal with the increased body heat. Shakespeare very correctly referred to body armor as “that which scalds as it shields” or words to that effect. In other words soft body armor is nothing anyone who didn’t require it would willingly wear daily.Given the cost factor, level of discomfort not to mention effectively concealing it in hot, humid and very public locations I’m not concerned with other folks being able to purchase it, heck we train for offenders wearing soft body armor. The concept of banning ownership is foolish because anyone who really needed it for nefarious purposes would obtain it anyway. It’s akin to gun and knife regulations, restrictions or bans, you’re not going to stop evil people from getting them. All you’ll end up doing is making it more difficult for average folk and collectors or turning these folks into criminals.

Alberta's act is designed to keep body armor out of the hands of criminals so that the cycle of police militarization doesn't end with everyone in SWAT armor. It has automatic exemptions for anyone who can legally own firearms, so it's not a major overreach of power even by most American standards.

I think it's one more sign Albertan legislators don't have enough to do, and honestly just about any Southern state has a better way of dealing with gun violence, but it's Canada. I'm just happy the federal NDP isn't banning all guns and body armor entirely. Canada has a large population of panicky liberal jackasses, so I'm happy that we're making relatively smart choices politically while heading mostly in the pro-freedom direction.